E MAIL to: marilyn.king@ontario; firstname.lastname@example.org
Wednesday March 1, 2017 10:00 A.M.
I acknowledge receipt of Presenting Counsel's e mail in response to J.P. Massiah's
submission at 5:33 p.m. and your own at 5:57 p.m.
Again, allow me to be crystal clear. As counsel neither I or Mr. House take any issue
with the position articulated in your response. The issue is not about you as a person.
It is about the various hats you wear in the process and the potential adverse impact
this can have on our client's rights and indeed the administration of justice. Indeed,
as much as it is troubling to us to raise these issues we are unable to overlook the
manner in which the Vallencourt J. panel disposed of the compensation issue and
your role in the process which culminated in counsel in that proceedings receiving
payment directly from the Attorney General rather than by way of a cheque payable
to counsel in trust - since it is J.P. Massiah who is to be compensated.
Further, while you may have a right to bring a complaint of perjury against a JP who
testifies before a Hearing Panel - we have grave concerns about the timing and the fact
that your complaint appears to be a collateral attack on Justice Vallencourt's order
denying Presenting Counsel's motion to call reply evidence.
(I have attached your complaint and relevant documents)
I regret but J.P. Massiah's submissions required minor corrections. Please find
attached the corrected version and a recent case of ONCA on the issues raised.
The contents of this e mail are intended to supplement J.P. Massiah's submissions.
We leave it to you to share this with Presenting Counsel.
- REGISTRAR ejgpcFeb28th2017bCorrected Version.cod
- OntarioVchartisInsurance2017ONCA 59.pdf
NOTE: The above e mail was filed with the Registrar of the JPRC to supplement submissions filed with them. They are being published here as a public service since the Hearing Panel decided that it would depart from the traditional public hearing format and simply receive submissions in writing. The removal of a judicial officer is a matter of public importance in the free world. How the decision is arrived at to remove a judicial officer is also a matter of public importance. It is in this spirit and this spirit only that this information is shared with the community. Justice must be seen to be done.